Agenda item

Melanie Ellis introduced the report (Agenda Item 6), which set out the results of the consultation with all schools on the proposed primary and secondary school funding formula for 2025/26. The results of the consultation were provided in various charts in the report.

Melanie Ellis drew attention to section 2.1 of the report, which set out the Local Authority’s (LAs) recommendations and highlighted those where the Heads’ Funding Group (HFG) recommendation differed to that of the LA. Section 2.2 of the report set out the recommendations from the HFG and it could be seen that the HFG’s recommendation differed from that of the LA for recommendation (c) where the HFG was recommending a 0 percent block transfer, whereas the LA was recommending a transfer of 0.5 percent.

Melanie Ellis also drew attention to recommendation 2.2 (e) where it was set out that the HFG recommended that the services for de-delegation be agreed for 2025/26 however, recommended that a detailed review was commenced of de-delegations on a service-by-service basis, with a view to voting on each service separately for 2026/27.

Melanie Ellis went through the consultation results to each of the questions in detail, as set out in section five of the report. The key item for discussion by the Schools’ Forum was regarding question three on the block transfer. In the consultation, 50 percent of schools had supported a transfer and the majority of these had supported a 0.25 percent transfer. 50 percent of schools had supported a 0 percent transfer.

Trevor Keable voiced his disappointment that only 25 percent of schools had responded to the consultation.

In relation to the block transfer, Edwin Towill commented that the HFG had been clear that it did not support a top slice to the Schools’ Block. The consultation results from schools showed a clear split between no transfer and a 0.25 percent transfer. Only two schools that had responded to the consultation had supported a 0.5 percent transfer. Edwin Towill expressed that he was deeply concerned about taking money away from school budgets for two main reasons. Firstly, because if money was taken away from school budgets it would mean schools would not be able to fulfil responsibilities in supporting children with high needs. These responsibilities had increased exponentially over recent years and therefore a 0.25 or 0.5 percent transfer in his view would be prejudicial to young people in the community. The second reason was that he was worried the money would essentially disappear if transferred. There was a £13m projected overspend set out in the report for item eight on the High Needs Block (HNB), which highlighted a significant and increasing overspend, and Edwin Towill was concerned that there did not seem to be a plan in place for the problems facing the HNB. He therefore stated that he would not be minded to support a transfer.

Trevor Keable supported comments raised by Edwin Towill and commented that because cuts had already been made to Education Welfare Officers (EWOs) and other similar professionals, his school (Denefield) had needed to spend more on support for pupils. It was important to recognise that schools were having to spend more just to retain the level of support required.

Neil Goddard stated that he understood the concerns raised and it was known that it was a national problem with LAs across the country struggling to meet the increase in demand on the HNB. Neil Goddard clarified that the deficit highlighted under agenda item eight (£13m) was for the next financial year 2025/26. This would lead to a cumulative deficit of about £30m, which equated to the annual HNB allocation.

Neil Goddard explained the impact on the LA of holding the deficit. Although the deficit in the HNB did not fall onto the LA’s balance sheet, the LA did have to maintain the debt and pay the interest on it. It therefore impacted on what the LA was able to deliver and the reason why the LA would want to minimise the deficit as quickly as possible and not allow it to continue to escalate. Neil Goddard reported that Delivering Better Value (DBV) provided a plan and a detailed strategy. He accepted that plans such as the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Strategy were high level and that there was more work to do to form an overarching plan. The LA was under very close scrutiny from the DfE around DBV and what it was doing to manage the deficit. The impact from actions identified through DBV were not expected to be seen until 2025/26.  If money was transferred from the Schools’ Block to the HNB, then it would be targeted on the basis of need and potentially therefore have a greater level of impact. However, Neil Goddard fully accepted the pressures facing school budgets. The report helpfully set out discussions that had taken place at HFG and its proposals. 

Lesley Roberts referred to discussions that had taken place at the HFG and highlighted that schools felt the impact of other decisions. Schools could not continue to manage with money being take away continuously because needs in schools were increasing. Lesley Roberts felt that Council Members needed to be aware that many schools were unable to have full time staff due to having to cater for high needs. The impact on schools needed to be understood. Lesley Roberts acknowledged the pressure facing the LA but felt a transfer would further increase pressure on schools.  

Paul Davey commented that school budgets were spread very thinly, and this was placing increasing pressure on staff and senior leadership teams. Paul Davey commented on a position advertised at his school for a full-time classroom teacher and that no application has been submitted in eight weeks. This would mean administration time would have to be taken away from the senior leadership team in order to provide teaching time and maintain the required standards. Paul Davey stated that if more money was taken from schools through a transfer, it would make the situation even more difficult. The acceleration of the rate that staff were being lost from the teaching profession would only increase, exacerbating the problems faced. A transfer would provide a short-term fix and would not resolve the fundamental issue that education was underfunded.

Edwin Towill clarified that the LA were expecting funding from Government for high needs that would lead to a 5.7 percent increase in funding. It was appreciated that this was not enough however, it needed to be taken into account. The indicative figures from Government for schools currently suggested that once increases in employer national insurance contributions were taken into account, the budget increase for schools would equate to one percent. Once other elements like increases in salaries had been taken into account it was likely schools would face going further into deficit. Edwin Towill supported previous comments raised that anything taken away from school budgets would immediately impact the front line and the children they served would be in crisis.

The Chair invited the Schools’ Forum to consider recommendations 2.1:

(a)  To mirror the Department for Education’s (DfE) 2025/26 National Funding Formula (NFF) to calculate the funding allocations.

(b)  To address any surplus or shortfall in funding by adjusting the AWPU values.

It was proposed and seconded that recommendations 2.1 (a) and 2.1 (b) should be approved. At the vote with all school representatives the motion was carried.

The Chair invited the Schools’ Forum to consider recommendation 2.1:

(c)   To apply a 0.5% top slice to schools’ funding to support the HNB.

No proposal was put forward. Jon Hewitt stated that as a headteacher at a special school, which was funded from the HNB, it might be expected that he would be in support of this recommendation. He stated however that he did not support the recommendation because even a 0.5 percent transfer would be such a small amount and not make any difference. He concurred with concerns raised by other headteachers earlier in the discussion. Jon Hewitt stated that he questioned why funding was divided into blocks as it unhelpfully depicted special schools against mainstream schools and early years.

The Chair invited the Schools’ Forum to consider an alternative proposal to that set out in 2.1 (c). Edwin Towill proposed that a transfer would not go ahead, and this was seconded by David Fitter. At the vote the motion was carried.  

The Chair invited the Schools’ Forum to consider recommendations 2.1:

(d)  To approve the criteria to be used to allocate additional funds.

It was proposed and seconded that the recommendation should be approved. At the vote with all Forum representatives the motion was carried.

The Chair proposed that the Forum consider recommendation 2.1 (e) following a discussion on the next item (Final De-delegations 2025/26). This was agreed. Following this discussion, the Chair invited the Schools’ Forum to consider recommendation 2.1:

(e)  To approve the proposed services to be de-delegated.

It was proposed and seconded that the recommendation should be approved. At the vote with all maintained school representatives the motion was carried.

Trevor Keable asked if there was a LA response to the decision taken by the Forum on the transfer at the current stage. Neil Goddard stated that the decision taken by the Forum would be fed into and considered as part of the LA’s budget setting process. As discussed previously, the LA could then take a view to appeal the decision by the Schools’ Forum on the transfer to The Secretary of State. Clearly however the LA would want to reflect on the discussion and decision that had taken place at the Schools’ Forum.

Neil Goddard confirmed that if an appeal was progressed, a formal process would be followed and all supporting information including the minutes and recording of the meeting at which the item was discussed, would be sent to the DfE for review. There was currently no indication that the decision would be appealed however, it was important that the options available to the LA were clear and that this would be considered by Members of the LA as part of the budget setting process. Councillor Heather Codling indicated her agreement with this comment  (via chat function due to technical issue).

RESOLVED that:

• Recommendations 2.1 (a), (b), (d) and (e) were approved as set out in the report.
• Recommendation 2.1 (c) was not approved as set out in the report and an alternative proposal for there to be no transfer of funding between the Schools Block and HNB was approved.